Choiceless perception

At the end of this article behind the QOTD Mar 20, 2017
Krishnaji mentioned "Choiceless perception" as a possibilty.

What do we mean thereby ??

>Ommen Camp, Holland | 1st Public Talk 25th July, 1936

>So, then, what is individuality? Please understand that I am not laying emphasis on egotism, or on your getting rid of it. But when you understand for yourself the process of the "I", then there is a possibility of bringing it to an end. To comprehend this process you must begin fundamentally. Is the so-called soul real or an illusion, is it unique? Does it exist apart and exert its influence over the physiological or psychological being? Shall we, by studying the tissues and organic fluids, know what is thought, what is mind, what is that consciousness which is hidden in living matter? By studying his sociological behaviour shall we know what man is? Economists and physicists have left all this aside, and we, as individuals, we who are suffering, must go into this question deeply and sincerely. As we are dealing with ourselves we need great persistence, right effort and patience to comprehend ourselves. Physicists, economists, sociologists may give us theories, systems and techniques, but we ourselves have to make the right effort to understand the process of our consciousness, to penetrate through the many illusions to reality.

>Philosophers have given out certain theories and concepts regarding consciousness and individuality. There are many conflicting views, beliefs and assertions concerning reality. Each one of us through introspection and observation realizes that there is a living reality concealed in matter, but it plays very little part in our daily life. It is denied in our activities, in our everyday conduct. Because we have built up a series of walls of self-protective memories, it has become almost impossible to know what is the real. As I said, there are many beliefs, many theories, many assertions about individuality, its processes, its consciousness and its continuity, and the choice of what is true among these varied opinions and beliefs is left to you. Choice is left to those who are not utterly in subjugation to the authority of tradition, belief, or ideal, and to those who have not committed themselves intellectually or emotionally to faith.

>How can you choose what is true among these contradictions? Is the comprehension of truth a question of choice involving the study of various theories, arguments and logical conclusions which demand only intellectual effort? Will this way lead us anywhere? perhaps to intellectual argumentation; but a man who is suffering desires to know, and to him concepts and theories are utterly useless. Or is there another way, a choiceless perception? It is absolutely essential for our well-being, for our action and fulfilment, to understand what is individuality. You go to religious leaders, psychologists, and perhaps to scientists, and study and experiment with their theories and conclusions. You may go from one specialist to another, trying, according to your pleasure, their methods, but suffering still continues. What is one to do?

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

Once again we see that to understand something, in this case it is individuality, we have to do it ourselves. We cannot rely on the so-called "truth" of religious dogma, scientific research, philosophical thinking and so on. In short, thought of any kind will not lead to understanding, to truth. So what is left? It seems to me we find ourselves back to the title of this thread: Choiceless perception, choiceless awareness.

Others have written on this forum that "K is not the only one who has the truth. All religions have a spark of truth in them." This is wrong thinking. First K never claimed to have the truth because no one can give you the truth. No religion, guru or "spiritual leader" that claims to know the truth actually has the truth. They have hollow belief, faith.

You have to be your own spiritual leader, your own teacher and not many of us find solace in that. We want to be told either what truth is or how we can find it. And this is the difference between K and organized religion. The latter claims to have the truth. The former does not.

If we can't rely on anyones findings, we have to surch ourselves, isn't it ?
But ourselves are intertwined or maybe even overloaded or builded on or from thought,
so there seems to be a contradiction going on.

Also choiceless must be handeld with care, because if one choose to be choiseless,
there is a self choosing, so it appears that this being choiceless has to come to or trough you.

And also one have to find out if there is a difference between perception and awareness.

Jack Pine wrote:And this is the difference between K. and organized religion.
The latter claims to have the truth. The former does not.

Also here one has to act very careful, because what is the difference between 'organized religion' and those who defend 'the teaching' as being truth. As I see it, it is not the organized or not but the following in blind belief of what's been said or interpreted as truth, isn't it ??

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

Wim Opdam wrote:Also here one has to act very careful, because what is the difference between 'organized religion' and those who defend 'the teaching' as being truth.

There is no difference but do you understand that I am not saying that K's teachings are the truth or are not the truth? On the contrary I wrote that K knew he couldn't give us the "truth". Each person has to find the truth for himself.

Wim Opdam wrote:If we can't rely on anyones findings, we have to surch ourselves, isn't it ?
But ourselves are intertwined or maybe even overloaded or builded on or from thought,
so there seems to be a contradiction going on.

It is only a contradiction if the "self" is the entity, the invention of thought, doing "it" which I assume you mean is choiceless perception.

I have already stated that it appears clear to me that thought, the self, cannot find the truth and therefore is left with observation without conclusions, opinions or any other form of thought. It is possible to observe without thought. When we do that then there is not self with it's conditioning and limited understanding getting in the way of observation.

Wim Opdam wrote:And also one have to find out if there is a difference between perception and awareness.

May I suggest this quote from K. ? Maybe it can clarify a bit of this question of awareness and choiceless observation that he is talking about.

Awareness is the silent and choiceless observation of what is.

Poblems will always exist where the activities of the self are dominant. To be aware which are and which are not the activities of the self needs constant vigilance. This vigilance is not disciplined attention, but an extensive awareness which is choiceless. Disciplined attention gives strength to the self; it becomes a substitute and a dependence. Awareness, on the other hand, is not self-induced, nor is it the outcome of practice; it is understanding the whole content of the problem, the hidden as well as the superficial. The surface must be understood for the hidden to show itself; the hidden cannot be exposed if the surface mind is not quiet. This whole process is not verbal, nor is it a matter of mere experience. Verbalization indicates dullness of mind; and experience, being cumulative, makes for repetitiousness. Awareness is not a matter of determination, for purposive direction is resistance, which tends towards exclusiveness. Awareness is the silent and choiceless observation of what is; in this awareness the problem unrolls itself, and thus it is fully and completely understood. A problem is never solved on its own level; being complex, it must be understood in its total process. To try to solve a problem on only one level, physical or psychological, leads to further conflict and confusion. For the resolution of a problem, there must be this awareness, this passive alertness which reveals its total process.

Rich Nolet wrote: (quoting Krishnamurti)
Awareness is the silent and choiceless observation of what is

In a recent thread I talked about "observing with a quiet mind". Some fellow forum members seemed to take issue with this description. Krishnamurti talks about "choiceless observation", "choiceless awareness" and "passive alertness". I know it's probably difficult for us to talk about this but I understand these terms to mean observing without the interference of thought. Is that what the rest of you understand?

Hi Sean. I think you are refering to your thread: How can one nourrish attention, is it ? It is a very good post ( quote ) about awarenes, choiceless awareness. The awareness of what is happening exteriorly and our reaction to it, and the question about the division between the two. Not sure if it is related to this topic here about : what is the individual. Maybe the two subject are related in some way. Can one nourrish attention, awareness ? Is it still your question ? Another word for attention can be vigilance. Maybe the only thing that one can do is to be attentive to ones inattentiveness.

Rich Nolet wrote:Maybe the only thing that one can do is to be attentive to ones inattentiveness.

I think that one can be attentive to the ways in which one is inattentive....or attentive to the strategies of the 'me' which are attending only to achieving one's goal....even if that goal is being attentive. My goal is to be attentive because I have a problem/conflict that I want to GET RID OF, right? But the problem is a fact. It's a fact 'me' tries to solve. So me is not really attentive to the anger, for examply. 'Me'/I wants to get rid of it as if I am separate from it! To make a long story short, we can be attentive to how we approach the problem....any problem....always from division...me vs. the problem. Always trying to force a solution...a solution which will get rid of it. Never really being attentive to, or learning about, the problem itself.

Rich Nolet wrote:Can one nourrish attention, awareness ? Is it still your question ? Another word for attention can be vigilance. Maybe the only thing that one can do is to be attentive to ones inattentiveness.

Hi Rich. Thanks for your reply. Towards the end of the video I posted on my thread Krishnamurti more or less says one can't nourish attention/awarness. I think you are absolutely right about being attentive to inattentiveness. I do think that this is something we can all do.

Tom Paine wrote:I think that one can be attentive to the ways in which one is inattentive....or attentive to the strategies of the 'me' which are attending only to achieving one's goal....even if that goal is being attentive.

Hi Tom. In the video I posted in the thread I started yesterday Krishnamurti asks the audience if they are being attentive to the sound of a woodpecker drumming on a nearby tree. When we hear or see something, there can surely be instant attention and observation. I mean it's just observation without thought coming in and drawing conclusions, isn't it? When I say "just" I don't mean to state that this is in any way trivial.

Do we set out to have a goal of being attentive? How does this work? Do we say, "Right, I'm going for a walk by the sea and I'm going to be attentive." I don't think that I do this personally. I can't really relate to this situation but maybe it is indeed something that blocks attention and awareness. Is this something you have observed Tom?

Sean Hen wrote:. When we hear or see something, there can surely be instant attention and observation. I mean it's just observation without thought coming in and drawing conclusions, isn't it? When I say "just" I don't mean to state that this is in any way

If our minds are not preoccupied with a problem from work or an argument we had with our spouse. Observing nature is quite different from observing ourselves and our anger or violence. We don't want to change the bird song, or the sunset or flower. We just look or listen. But this attention and looking doesn't happen so easily when we suffer, does it? Don't we try to get rid of the suffering....by analyzing it...searching for a solution in what we know....have been taught....have experienced? So we wind up not paying attention to the suffering....the anger or fear...itself. we try to get rid of it, right? By trying to do something about it, we have separated ourselves from it, as if it's the enemy. How can we observe something we want to get rid of?

Tom Paine wrote:If our minds are not preoccupied with a problem from work or an argument we had with our spouse. Observing nature is quite different than observing ourselves and our anger or violence.

Hi Tom. I'm not sure this is true. Observing with clarity both externally and internally probably involve similar levels of attentiveness and the absence of thought distorting the observations. Is being attentive to a woodpecker drumming and anger arising within us really so different? Of course, if we are completely stressed out or depressed, any kind of observation might be difficult. We might be at such a low point that all we can do is go round in circles in our mind trying to find a solution to a particularily worrying problem. I expect we've all experienced this.

Sean Hen wrote:f attentiveness and the absence of thought distorting the observations. Is being attentive to a woodpecker drumming and anger arising within us really so different?

I'd say, yes, Sean. The argument I had yesterday with my wife or boss effects me personally....causes deep anger or confusion and I want to understand it...the woodpecker does not affect me on that level....not unless I'm trying to take a nap.

Tom Paine wrote:I'd say, yes, Sean. The argument I had yesterday with my wife or boss effects me personally....causes deep anger or confusion and I want to understand it...the woodpecker does not affect me on that level....not unless I'm trying to take a nap.

Hi Tom. Are you saying then that in certain situations observation and understanding are blocked by strong emotions? Can I ask why it is so difficult to observe anger arising in ourselves? If we can observe nature with great attention, why can't we observe ourselves with great attention? Do strong emotions shut out observation?

Sean Hen wrote:Are you saying then that in certain situations observation and understanding are blocked by strong emotions?

Of course. How many of us do you think have freed themselves from anger or violence? If we were able to observe objectively free of judgment or justification or condemnation, we'd understand and be free of them, no?

Tom Paine wrote:We don't want to change the bird song, or the sunset or flower. We just look or listen. But this attention and looking doesn't happen so easily when we suffer, does it? Don't we try to get rid of the suffering....by analyzing it...searching for a solution in what we know....have been taught....have experienced? So we wind up not paying attention to the suffering....the anger or fear...itself. we try to get rid of it, right? By trying to do something about it, we have separated ourselves from it, as if it's the enemy. How can we observe something we want to get rid of?

Can we observe suffering anger, fear or the chattering of the mind in the same way that we observe the bird song, or the sunset ?

Rich Nolet wrote:Can we observe suffering anger, fear or the chattering of the mind in the same way that we observe the bird song, or the sunset ?

This seems to be extraordinarily difficult for most of us. We normally think about the anger and blame the person who made us angry...or try to understand their behavior...or blame ourselves for something we did to make them angry....or justify the anger by saying, 'Of course I'm angry...he/she treated me badly, and I have a right to be angry'. We're so used to reacting in this manner I wonder what it would take to drop this pattern and simply observe.

Yes we have been conditioned to blame others, to justify, to comdamn to judge. It is our conditioning. Seeing this, can we observe without interferrences in the observation as to judge, to condamn, justify or even to recognise or naming and so on ?

Rich Nolet wrote:It is our conditioning. Seeing this, can we observe without interferring in the observation....

We understand this perfectly well on an intellectual level, but that's not enough to change this pattern. Honestly, I have no idea what might lead one to actually observe rather than react according to the conditioned pattern or patterns? Perhaps it might help to understand the conditioning(what is)...the reacting... and how it is constantly interfering in observation. This is the 'me' in action....always trying to control what he considers to be the 'not me'(the anger or fear, the wife or child...or whatever he wants to change)

Tom Paine wrote:We understand this perfectly well on an intellectual level, but that's not enough to change this pattern. Honestly, I have no idea what might lead one to actually observe rather than react according to the conditioned pattern or patterns?

Is it really about actually observe rather than react according to the conditioned pattern ? Isn't this imply a choice ? This or that ? Which is exactly a conditioned pattern ? What might lead one to observe our reactions in relationship, with everythings, which necessitate attention, vigilance, is when one see that selfknowledge is fundamental. Then there is no choice. Relationship is the mirror in which ourselves are revealed, in which the conditioning is revealed. And the question is not, in all due respect, to observe rather than to react accordingly to our patterns, but to observe our reactions with everything. And this is where choiceless awareness comes in. And there can be revelations in this. But it is up to you. Anybody can do it for another. One have to leave the intellectual level and dive into the real, if I may say.

And maybe this bring us back to the initial question: what is individuality.

Tom Paine wrote:Of course. How many of us do you think have freed themselves from anger or violence? If we were able to observe objectively free of judgment or justification or condemnation, we'd understand and be free of them, no?

Hi Tom. I don't know how many of us have freed ourselves from anger or violence. I think it all comes back to attention. Maybe next time I get angry I will become aware of it rising, be quick on to it as it were. Just observing the anger rising within me might help me understand what is going on. I don't think this is a goal that I have. I think it's more about being alert to things going on in and around one.

Tom Paine wrote:Honestly, I have no idea what might lead one to actually observe rather than react according to the conditioned pattern or patterns?

Interesting question indeed Tom.

Can we observe that our reactivity decreases when we are quiet ? Therefore isn't it important to 'cultivate' quietness ?

But how is one to cultivate quietness ?

Maybe we could look at what cultivates 'excitement' (the opposite of quietness): like entertainment, looking for profit and social status, needs for all kinds of material goods, addictions of all kinds, stress at work etc ...

Also here one has to act very careful, because what is the difference between 'organized religion' and those who defend 'the teaching' as being truth.

There is no difference but do you understand that I am not saying that K's teachings are the truth or are not the truth?

Jack,
Did I say you did, I only said we have to be careful.
There are already signs from people who are acting as such !!

Tom Paine wrote:I have no idea what might lead one to actually observe rather than react according to the conditioned pattern or patterns? Perhaps it might help to understand the conditioning(what is)...the reacting... and how it is constantly interfering in observation.

Tom,
Don't have an idea what might lead to, because that's already a goal as well as a pattern (causual way from one state of being to another).
The fact is that 'actually observe' the pattern is already breaking the pattern
(from personal experience) but it give you no garantee ' the 'me' in action....again, that would be thought in action.

Wim Opdam wrote:That cannot be true, otherwise one could never observe anger in action, so one can skip the word 'totally'.

In fact you can never observe 'anger in action' ... what you observe is the memory of anger, a past event ... and when you observe 'anger in action' here and now, it means that there is no anger any more, because observation means silence of mind ie. no anger ...

That cannot be true, otherwise one could never observe anger in action, so one can skip the word 'totally'.

In fact you can never observe 'anger in action' ... what you observe is the memory of anger, a past event ... and when you observe 'anger in action' here and now, it means that there is no anger any more, because observation means silence of mind ie. no anger ...

If that is how you see it Jean, that's fine for me,
but where does the anger start and where does it end ??

The rising of anger in my view is already anger
and can be observed and stops the 'totally observed by' !!

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

Tom Paine wrote:We understand this perfectly well on an intellectual level, but that's not enough to change this pattern. Honestly, I have no idea what might lead one to actually observe rather than react according to the conditioned pattern or patterns? Perhaps it might help to understand the conditioning(what is)...the reacting... and how it is constantly interfering in observation

Hi again Tom. I think you're right here. For example, imagine I set up a business many years ago and my business partner cheated me and ran away with all the money. I am bitter about this, I have lost faith in human beings. My anger at an event that happened all these years ago has never been resolved and any slight incident in the present may trigger this anger. How are we to understand this pattern? Maybe therapy can help. I understand that Krishnamurti pointed to acute awareness, attention in the present moment that allows us to understand complex internal dynamics and react immediately without the intervention of thought. It's like shining a light on dark areas which gives insight and leads to action. Can we actually put this into practice in daily life?

Sean Hen wrote:I understand that Krishnamurti pointed to acute awareness, attention in the present moment that allows us to understand complex internal dynamics and react immediately without the intervention of thought.

Right, however this cannot be called a 'reaction' but rather the awareness of the 'emergence' of a reaction (ie. a resistance), which then allows to "say yes to 'what is' faster than your shadow" ...

Honestly, I have no idea what might lead one to actually observe rather than react according to the conditioned pattern or patterns?
Interesting question indeed Tom.

Can we observe that our reactivity decreases when we are quiet ? Therefore isn't it important to 'cultivate' quietness ?

Glad you put 'cultivate' in quotes, Jean :) Of course this already is bringing in time, and I'm angry or violent or craving another beer right NOW. My wife of 20 years threatens to leave me. I feel I love her dearly....I depend on her....she's a good cook.....she brings me sexual satisfaction and a feeling of security. I'm devistated by hearing her tell me she wants a divorce. Sean asked if one can simply observe the emotional reactions as one would observe nature. I pointed out that there's usually great difficulty doing this simple observation when our mind is chewing on a serious emotional issue. Rich pointed out that 'self knowledge is fundamental', but the man who fears losing his wife ....or his job for that matter...wants his wife or job, not self knowledge. When I crave a cigarette (for example) will I observe that intense feeling or will I give in to it, or better perhaps, find a substitute activity to take my mind off the cigarette? I'm simply giving some examples of how we humans normally behave when facing some fairly common emotional problems. Rich said to simple observe all of it, but can we really simply observe when we feel we must DO something? When our mind is occupied with the problem is observation even possible? Is observation possible when my mind is caught up with thought and emotion? There's no observation taking place when I'm caught up in thought, right? I'm lost in the problem which I've identified with. Then I say to myself, "K says to simply observe. I must try to do that." But my mind finds it has another problem now. On top of my impending divorce, I must try to learn to observe...to stop thinking about a solution and observe. So I make an effort to observe....which brings frustration when I fail to stop thinking. Now I feel that I'm not just a failure at my marriage, but I'm a failure at observing...at doing what K says is of utmost importance.